| I want to play devils advocate here. You seem to be pretty much in line with most of the people commenting here, who largely assume there are methodological problems with the studies rather than accepting the findings that wealth causes moral decay. Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Yes, this could account for why that person is wealthier. But it is not moral behavior. Someone who says "the rules do not strictly prohibit me from taking as much candy from the children as I feel like, therefore I will do so" is a cancer on society, someone who takes as much as they can get away with, everyone else be damned. In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them? Because there are other people, and you should consider their needs and wants in addition to your own. |
Is there anyone else that shares my thoughts?